Some years ago I absorbed this information from a now-long-forgotten source: The reason that we will likely never see an AI-style robot uprising is that human intelligence differs from artificial intelligence in one specific and significant way. Human beings think, in large part, using analogy. This means that we absorb data from one event, tweak it in our minds appropriately and apply it to other situations. Pretty basic, if you think about it, which I guess is kinda the point.
I also absorbed this quote from a vividly-remembered movie, (As Good As It Gets): “People who talk in metaphors oughta shampoo my crotch.”
So, as beings who think analogously, it’s a bit difficult to avoid speaking and articulating ourselves analogously. Most of the time, however, I think that analogies (and metaphors) only serve to obscure the point that one is trying to make. If one wants to talk about something, I think we’re all best served if one talks about that actual thing instead of talking around it. Which is why I flip out so immediately with the “This is just like when Hiltler killed all those Jews” stuff. Because nothing is “just like” anything else, really. (Though, I’m sure if you search this blog, you can find points at which I’ve made my share of analogous statements. I try not to do it often. But, you know, shit happens.)
Having said all of that, I think that the struggle for gay civil rights exists in murky territory. Often, the analogies that we attempt to make are not helpful. First of all, denying anyone the right to marry is not “just like that one time” when black people had to ride in the back of buses. It’s simply not. Trying to make a moral equivalency argument between black and gay civil rights not only obfuscates the horror of our racial history, but it also will diminish the effectiveness of the gay rights movement. This is because, in part, our victory in the present civil rights struggle will depend on our ability to address the idiosyncrasies of the opposition to this specific movement.
Keeping African Americans “separate but equal” was a largely economic endeavor — give black people access to the same rights and opportunities as whites and they’ll be able to compete for jobs and a share of the wealth. Biblical justification for white supremacy were trotted out, but underneath the layers of divine aye-okays and on-the-nose racism, was always the “they’ll take our jobs” fear.
None of this is really applicable to gay civil rights. Yes, there is an attempt to “other” a specific group of people, but the rationale is not economic and so our counter-attempts cannot be the same as those of the anti-slavery movement or the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Pretending that we are fighting the same fight will only hurt us and slow our progress.
On the other hand, there is still room for comparison, and as my esteemed co-Elpisian, BFRANK, demonstrated in a recent post, the way best to do that is to make a “these things go together” argument instead of a “this is just like that one time” argument. And it’s not just that “go together” arguments are acceptable, but rather that they are necessary.
Like it or not, same-sex marriage has become a legal issues. And while those who pepper everyday conversation with analogies may well be required to shampoo my crotch, those who do so in court are called “lawyers.” Our entire legal system is based on precedent. So, while our current civil rights struggle is not “just like” the civil rights struggle of the ’60s, we must employ the language of previous court cases as legal justification for granting civil rights in the present. A plethora of cases cite Roe v. Wade, and this is not to say that the substance of those cases — say, drug trafficking or sodomy — are “just like” abortion. These cases have simply dealt with similar legal issues.
So, when we say “separate is not equal,” I think we’re justified in doing so, no crotch-shampooing required. When I discuss gay marriage in these terms, I mean to say that Brown v. Board of Education declared “separate but equal” to be unconstitutional. And whether or not anything will every again be “just like” this nation’s “colored only” segregation is irrelevant. The legal precedent is arguably applicable to any myriad of situations.
So, I guess what I’m saying is this: Let’s keep our legal and moral arguments distinct. This distinction will not hinder our moral argument for legalizing same-sex marriage. First of all, because there’s no need to pretend that any injustice has to be exactly like racial segregation in order for that injustice to be immoral. And second, with arguments that specifically address the issue at hand, we’ll be in a position to better respond to the fight at hand rather than to the fight of 50+ (or a century-and-a-half+) years ago.
And I know that this whole post is relevant to pretty much nothing that’s happened in the most immediate news cycle, but it’s something that I’ve been tossing around in my head for a long time. Semantics, semantics, there will always be a special place for you on this blog. And in my heart.
I don’t think the analogy between the fight for civil rights for homosexuals and blacks (et all) is inappropriate or counterproductive. In fact, I think it is a hopeful and inspiring one. The people fighting for homosexual rights are able too look back at history and realize that the fight is worth it because the fight can be won — because other groups have won it already.
Is the plight of the African American the same as the plight of the Homosexual American? No, but to get into an argument over which was worse is more counterproductive than the attempt to debunk the analogies between the. Black people were routinely lynched while the authorities turned a blind eye, just as they did while homosexuals were beaten to death in the streets or killed en mass by the “gay disease” AIDS. Blacks were forced into slavery, homosexuals were forced into concentration camps and made to identify themselves with a pink triangle by the Nazis. So all things considered, I’m glad I’m a straight white man.
It’s also a useful analogy because the people fighting for homosexual rights are able to use historical precedent to debunk the same arguments racists leveled against granted black people equal rights. People back then said the same lies and illogical, baseless assumptions about how it would lead to the downfall of society and the end of the American dream. None of that happened then, and it won’t happen next.